Criticism of Uncyclopedia
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
“Oscar Wild quotes are even funnier than Chuck Norris gags which are even funnier than fag jokes.”
“It´s not that your edit to my featured article is completely unwelcome, but...”
“Oh my god, ha ha ha, Oscar Wild said something, and its now here on uncyclopedia, isn't that funny, ha ha ha, lurg.”
Uncyclopedia also known as house of lame or maison de l'aime le lame. It is a website that replaces bathroom stall doodling with spooge in binary form. On the surface it is just a bunch of unfunny articles. Deep below is a culture of scary writers mired in infighting, strategic voting, ego-whoring, horrificly shopped images, needles in hay stacks and recurring memes that were not much funny the first time. Occasionally a heterosexual guy with a life, a sense of humour, who somehow discoveres the existance of uncyclopedia, is fated to read a few pages and then sniff the air, strach their eyes and finish their pop tart, all the worse for the experience.
There are only 365 articles written each year which aren't lame. We will call this a "good" article. Good in the sense of abssence of extreme WTF? To be a "good" article, a page generally has to be written by one of the three regular authors of uncyclopedia articles, must be nominated by one of them and subsequently voted for by two of them. On top of that, the article should hopefuly not be voted down by sock puppet users who, are the same three writers trying to sabotage one another (you've been outed 3188.8.131.52.243) with their sock-puppet-sabotage/vengency/envy account.
Despite this process a page gets approved each day to be featured and therefore become "good" which you remember really means not ginormously "frightening" but only sort of horrific. Though funny is relative in this case, there is always a medium amount of funny in all articles. To ensure however that the article gets one laugh, the author will introduce a gay bashing joke, quote Oscar Wild (who is gay), talk about penises and assholes, or make fun of liberals (which by association on uncyclopedia are all gay). Its generally assumed that the authors' obsessions with gayness means that all authors themselves are gay or are jelouse of gay people meaning they must write gay things which makes their articles funny and of a high standard and helarious quality. This means they are writing about themselves, which is one very truly ironic and funny thing about uncyclopedia.
In any case, three penis worshiping writers deliver us those 365 articles each year (with an additional very funy article every four years) to make each other laugh at their funniness. One gets the idea that if the three of them just got together and told jokes, that there would be a more self contained kind of laughter and a lot more free space on the internet for stuff one would laugh at.
edit Images and Citations
The images are either total rip offs of images from other websites or are said images but doctored badly. But, doctored so badly that it is like they want you to know they are doctored. They want you to know that they doctored them bady. That no one has a copy of photoshop. That they cannot make a good image and so they want to impress you by not only how badly they doctor images, but how well they can show you how bad they are at doctoring them.
The images never have a copywrite certificate with them opening the site up to serious legal problems. As no one ever reads these articles this is yet to be a problem but in the future, when unemployment and divorce becomes more common ripped off artists and scavenger laywers with some new found free time may find out about this site and close it down (forcing five people to spend time with their family or express their homosexuality in other ways).
No citations are real (as they tend to go to dead links) and the links don't ever link to the article that it says its going to link to. It makes browsing through the website kind of useless as you do not know what non fact or unexisting image you will come across. Almost no research is carried out by anyone when writing meaning that people just invent whatever comes first to their minds. It is likely that the authors haven't slept in 36 hours and randomly choose something to write about, quote Oscar Wild and then invent new ways to harass homosexuals (or themselves), make up things that aren't true, steal and doctor an image and then vote on it to show how funny it is(n't).
Most other articles are written in about 5 minutes and then trashed or huffed by other users, usualy unscrupulous article monsters who think they write much better but in fact haven't written an article in years since their first and last disaster article which was huffed by yet another sockpuppet user. The vicious circles of criticism, envy and love between them is an anthropological students dream study and would be studied if anyone had ever heard about uncyclopedia.
Most articles are really ... but really ... super extra mega lame. The word lame becomes meaningful when thinking about uncyclopedia, its lame articles, the lame people who write the articles, and the lamely doctored lame images that peper the whole structure of lameness. Generously speaking, about 0.0001 percent of the articles are not lame. Of those, a tiny handfull are funny enough to forward to friends. No one does this because forwarding an uncyclopedia link to a friend would create confusion as no one has ever heard of the website and thus reading it would make people think that you spend your time with people who are lame and do lame things. For instance, no one in the history of social networking has linked an uncyclopedia article to their facebook account making uncyclopedia the only site on the interweb to not be linked on atleast one persons account in any social media form. To do so would be to admit to their friends that they like uncyclopedia likely meaning they would lose their friends, giving them even more time to write uncyclopedia articles and continuing the vicous circle and end up even lamer than they were to begin with.
The articles can be so horrifyingly boring that wikipedia science articles are far funnier and more worthy of laughing at. For instance uncyclopedias article on the element Silicon will produce a chuckle once in every 10,000 reads (which occurs daily) as opposed to the popular uncyclopedia article silicon, an article that has nothing to do with the element silicon, which is read a staggering three times a week and is given a pity laugh once a decade, by its own author, who reads it three times a week.
Uncyclopedia articles are so unfunny that as you read these articles you beg the article to give you even a whimper of a laugh. You force yourself to laugh at the unfunny sweating of the articles that the random use of the words "Oscar Wild" or "faggot" will have you whispering a distant chuckle or two. Maybe an extra lame "go eat shit fuckers" reference will help you fill up your lonely 15 minute coffee break as your cool co-workers spend their time chatting and bragging about their interesting weekends. About 99.9998 percent of articles are based solely on deriving humour from Oscar Wild, homo bashing and unhumorous links. However, Uncyclopedia can only be critical of itself, something which shouldn´t be done, nor is such a thing nessesary and therefore we wont make fun of it and hurt the feelings of five bored and lonely homosexuals.
edit Insider Language
The inside language that users use with each other, writing bizarre sayings on each others page is so mysterious that it is difficult to ascertain if there is any communication going on or if someone is simply asking you to be their friend. For example "Hey ass hole, if you revert one more edit I'm going to ass rape every article you've ever created and block you for 2.049 seconds. You've been warned". It's hard to tell if these are direct threats or some coded form of bonding, generally lonely male bonding. Uncyclopedia is a tree club for lonely male bonding and the occasional chick, a lame chick. In the end it is mean to criticise something like this as everyone has to find their nook in this world. Even if it is lonely male bonders expressing their homosexuality through unread satire articles.
edit Deleted Content
About one written word in ten thousand end up lasting more than a week on Uncyclopedia if an article lasts at all. The moment one writes an article it is usually submitted for deletion by one of uncyclopedias friendly and helpful staff. Any nOOb who writes anything will find their article usually huffed by bored writers but more often forced to see their article paraded around on VFD, insulted by guys who never write and then deleted one hour later.
The moment you suggest a change to someone elses article, your attempt at colaboration will often result in your account being deleted. If anyone ever adds to a featured article one can expect it to be erased one micro second after its submission. Authors who can die in peace having had two or three articles of theirs featured are completely unCapable of accepting any edits to their stories that they design bots to immediately revert the slightest change, even spelling corrections, with automatic messages such as "don't touch my precious" or "it's not that your contribution is completely despised but you have no fucking right to edit my perfection". Other popular reverts have been labeled "hey man, this is MY article, I wrote it, it was ME who nominated it, it was MY sockpupet accounts that voted for it, and it is NOT you to touch my sweet sweet baby, dont touch her, no no no, my sweeeeeeeet baby", as well as "um, yeah, um, I don't think so, as funny as you may think your contribution is, it just doesn't fit in with my kind of funny, and my kind of funny is a kind of funny with a story, and a sort of scheme that you don't get and your addition loosens up my text rather than tightening it and with what youve written, it's kind of funny I guess, but I just don't see it as a featured article" or the common "back off mother fucker or I'll ass rape every article you've ever touched or come close to and block you for AAAAAAAAA week, you have been served fag!" Lonely male bonding can only be understood by lonely male bonders.
Currently uncyclopedia is hosted by wikia, a sort of meta-club of meta-lonely male bonding. However, before so, no server hosted Uncyclopedia for more than a couple months as the lack of interest in the site and amount of data added and immediately huffed by authors made any server go haywire.
Uncyclopedia is so US biased that even Canadians don´t get a fraction of the jokes. British people try and try to contribute but their articles are usually ignored because their humour is so subtle the articles are practically wikipedia articles with ironic foot notes. Even though Australian´s produced the worlds funniest comedian they don't contribute as no Australians are gay.
South Africans now have the internet. As they slowly liberalise and come out of the closet and study at US universities, their contributions will certainly one day be very unwelcome by uncyclopedias authors and their articles will be huffed quickly and slowly they will learn to doctor images badly.
There are cousin sites of lame foreiners writing equally lame stuff in other languages which are also only read by themselves and ofcourse never read by Americans as they are working on mastering the English language. Learning to count to 5 in any other lauguage takes a lot of time.
For now we will have understand uncyclopedia as half a dozen lonely male bonding closeted homosexuals and their oscar wild quotes writing about American topics and voting on each other to direct us to their daily funny articles.
The yearly writing competition, PLS, spits out a few articles which usualy become one of those 365 good articles each year. Rare needles in the unfunny haystake. The optimism is that there are atleast three funny articles.